Emily Critchley Introductory Remarks Exactly ten years ago, a much-needed anthology devoted to linguistically innovative women's poetry from the US, Canada & the UK, called Out of Everywhere, was published by Ken Edwards and Wendy Mulford of Reality Street Editions and edited by Maggie O'Sullivan, one of the leading contemporary women poets in the UK.1 Its title, as Maggie O'Sullivan explains in the foreword, came directly from a question from an unnamed audience member present at a talk given by Rosmarie Waldrop in NY in 1988 on the subject of women's experimental poetry: I imagine that you must have some difficulty with the more explicit, politically engaged writing, don't you? Or with the exclusion of poets like yourself [...] from, for example, the Gilbert and Gubar anthology of women's writing? was the question put to Waldrop. The anonymous speaker went on: There's an extra difficulty being a woman poet and writing the kind of poetry you write: you are out of everywhere.2 Though we are told "[laughter]" followed this comment, its implications are serious enough and still haunt some women writing experimentally today; that is, the conflict between work 1 Out of Everywhere: linguistically innovative poetry by women in North America and the UK, ed. Maggie O'Sullivan (London: Reality Street Editions, 1996), 9. which is recognisably female or feminist, which involves communicating 'women's experience' explicitly and politically, and as such, is embraced by a certain kind of editor or audience (I am thinking of anthologies with titles such as No More Masks!, The World Split Open & Deep Down: The New Sensual Writing by Women3) and those poets who have wanted, as women, to write challenging, formally progressive poetry without either being excluded from serious feminist debate or marginalised by their avant-garde peers. For certainly, such writing has been treated as "marginal" within the avant-garde, dominated as this has been, to use Ron Silliman's term, by "WMH"s or white male heterosexuals,"4 many of whom have viewed some of the most radically progressive women's writing as too personal, too domestic or too niche, to speak to the readership of their particular press or anthology: [W]omen, people of color, sexual minorities, the entire spectrum of the 'marginal' - have a manifest political need to have their stories told [so that] their writing [...] often appears much more conventional Silliman wrote this in the July-September issue of Socialist Review, 1988. And though few critics would go on record with such a major generalisation these days, many women working in the 2 The full talk by Rosmarie Waldrop can be read in The Politics of Poetic Form, ed. Charles Bernstein (New York, Roof: 1990) pp.45-72. 3 No More Masks! An Anthology of Poems by Women, eds. Ellen Bass and Florence Howe (New York: Anchor, 1973), The World Split Open: Women Poets 1552 - 1956, ed. Louise Bernikow (London: Women's Press, 1974), Deep Down: The New Sensual Writing by Women, ed. Laura Chester (Boston: Faber & Faber, 1988). avant-garde field, particularly in this country, still quietly feel the assumption behind Silliman's words. As cris cheek wrote in an email to the UK poetry list last week: the relative absence of women from avant-garde scenes is: a serious issue, and [...] an issue that persists. At least in comparison to the situation here in US America, where it is not exactly wonderful but certainly better.5 Recent discussion on this email list, prompted by Mairead Byrne, as to the whereabouts of women poets when history was being made by "cliques"6 of avant-garde British men. Peter Barry's 2006 Poetry Wars,7 puts their invisibility down to "the pull of the Women's Consciousness movement."8 As Robert Hampson suggested: I knew women who wrote poetry but didn't engage with any of the activities around 'BPR'/innovative poetry in London - but they were involved in Women's Movement and Marxist groups and activities. The fact is, of course, that lots of women were writing both non- political and politically-engaged experimental poetry, but their lack of physical visibility or vocal dominance at readings and in pubs, perhaps due to its very cliquishness, a lack of invitations to speak, 4 'What / Person: From an Exchange,' Leslie Scalapino and Ron Silliman, Poetics Journal 9, eds. Barrett Watten and Lyn Hejinian, June 1991. p.51. 5 Chris cheek, email to the UK poetry list (Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:15:01). 6 Robert Hampson, email to the UK poetry list (Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:45:16) 7 Peter Barry, Poetry Wars (Cambridge, Salt: 2006) 8 Robert Sheppard, email to the UK poetry list (Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:05:34) "because it was implicitly made clear they weren't welcome,"9 or because there were children that needed putting to bed, means that they have been largely overlooked as significant contributors to the avant-garde scene. As Kathleen Fraser put it in her study of contemporaneous tensions in America, 'Partial Local Coherence / Regions with Illustrations / A Personal Account of Encountering' (1982): "the exclusion of females from the consolidation of literary groups is a 'common historic practice.'"10 The low visibility of women at such gatherings has, of course, made its attendant parallel in print. The exclusion of such important women modernists from 'the canon' as Mina Loy, Gertrude Stein, Dorothy Richardson, Lorine Niedecker, Laura Riding, Mary Butts, Ivy Compton Burnett, Lola Ridge and Genevieve Taggart, is slowly being corrected, if not, yet, in standard university curricula, then at least in postgraduate studies and specialist courses and by journals such as How2. At the same time as our concepts of cultural history are being revised and reformed, however, new exclusions are being perpetrated. Ron Padgett and David Shapiro's 1970 Anthology of New York Poets11 notoriously featured only one woman, Bernadette Mayer, out of twenty-six writers - despite the huge contributions made to that scene by, for example, Barbara Guest, Anne Waldman and Alice Notley. The groundbreaking anthology of Language poetry, 9 Ken Edwards, email to the UK poetry list (Mon, 25 Sept 2006) 10 from Fraser's translating the unspeakable: Poetry and the Innovative Necessity Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 2000) p.57. 11 Anthology of New York Poets, eds. Ron Padgett and David Shapiro (New York: Random House, 1970). Ron Silliman's In the American Tree,12 published in '86, included ten women out of forty poets. A Various Art,13 edited by Andrew Crozier and Tim Longville in 1987 included Veronica Forrest- Thomson as the only female contribution, and Iain Sinclair's Conductors of Chaos,14 which came out in '96 featured five women out of thirty-five. Moreover, since Out of Everywhere, there have been few major publications with international availability devoted to women's experimental poetry. Moving Borders: Three Decades of Innovative Writing by Women (ed. Mary Margaret Sloan),15 is a landmark anthology yet sadly it never got a reprint and so has become unavailable. One of Rae Armantrout's most famous contributions to In the American Tree16 was an essay teasingly entitled 'Why Don't Women Do Language-Oriented Writing?' that sought to explain that, contrary to appearances, women do write language poetry, but they simply don't get the same critical attention: I've been asked th[e...] question [Why don't women do Language-oriented writing] twice, in slightly differing forms Armantrout opens the piece by explaining: 12 In the American Tree: Language, Realism, Poetry, ed. Ron Silliman (Orono: National Poetry Foundation, 1986) 13 A Various Art, eds. Andrew Crozier and Tim Longville (London: Carcanet, 1987). 14 Conductors of Chaos, ed. Iain Sinclair (London: Picador, 1996). 15 Moving Borders: Three Decades of Innovative Writing by Women, ed. Mary Margaret Sloan (New Jersey: Talisman House, 1998). 16 pp.544-547. I answered that women need to describe the conditions of their lives. This entails representation. Often they feel too much anger to participate in the analytical tendencies of modernist or "post-modernist" art. She then stops herself in her tracks: This was an obvious answer. The more I thought about it the less it explained anything important. Most male writers aren't language-centered either. Why don't more men do language-oriented writing? Several months later [...] I was asked to write an article explaining why women don't produce language-oriented works. [...] Was I being asked to justify th[e exclusion of women language-oriented writers...] from consideration? Lyn Hejinian, Bernadette Mayer, Alice Notley, Susan Howe, Hannah Weiner, Carla Harryman, Lynne Dreyer, Joanne Kyger, Anne Waldman and Maureen Owen seem, to one degree or another, language-oriented. Of course, that's a tricky term. If it's taken to mean total non-reference, these women don't fit. Neither, however, do Ron Silliman, Barrett Watten, Bob Perelman, Ted Greenwald, Charles Bernstein or Bruce Andrews. (p.544) Amongst Language writers, the under representation of women within anthologies and subsequent criticism, despite equal numbers of women writing Language poetry, has been put down to a difference in critical output between the men & women of that scene. Eleana Kim17 is just one critic who has noted that the movement was very much framed and directed by the expository prose of Watten, Silliman, Perelman and Bernstein, whose confident, authoritative writing has the air of manifesto-making, not to mention the making of careers, while the low frequency of theoretical or polemical work accompanying the poetry of women Language writers meant that they were taken less seriously by their male peers - an anxiety that several Language-oriented poets realised and grappled with throughout the '90s.